Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am delighted to announce that we will put the documents on the bond in the Library of the House so that all Members can see them. I also think that Warren Buffett has made a major contribution, as has the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in the role that he played on the high-level panel.
	Earlier this year, the UK, together with the US, France, Russia, the Netherlands and Germany, presented to the IAEA board of governors a proposal to provide reliable access to nuclear fuel of exactly the kind described in the Question. Since then, we have been working hard to demonstrate how that would work in practice. The UK's enrichment bond idea is a bold and, I believe, practical proposal that would provide recipient states with a genuinely credible guarantee of the supply of low enrichment uranium without the risk of weapons proliferation.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposal has much merit to it, particularly if one is talking about an international and independent nuclear fuel bank? Does he also agree that the future is bound to involve a major expansion of carbon-free civil nuclear power if we are serious about lowering carbon in the atmosphere; that in those circumstances there is bound to be a huge advance in civil nuclear power around the world; that the inspection system, which we have lived with since the Second World War; is not working very well; and that this alternative of an independent nuclear fuel bank to service and facilitate the use of civil nuclear energy around the world might be a much better approach? So could we have not merely putting the documents in the Library but positive thinking inside Her Majesty's Government and possible support for an initiative based on these ideas?

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware of the grave concern expressed by the Employers Forum on Age and others—experts in the field who positively want the legislation to improve the lot of older workers—that the regulations in their present form will seriously upset the provision of a wide range of ensured employee benefits that are currently available? Will he assure the House that the Government will consider sympathetically the amendments proposed by the EFA, which are designed to prevent that unintended but certainly perverse result?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have sympathy with the Government, because age discrimination raises more complicated issues than many other kinds of discrimination. Is the Minister aware, following what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the specific issues raised by the Employers Forum on Age are really quite serious? They include the lack of guidance or sensible policy on redundancy, insured benefits, pension-related matters and government-funded training schemes. It seeks not just policy changes rbut further guidance to clarify those issues. Would the Government be prepared to look again at the lack of proper guidance, as the forum says, on those issues, and in particular consider giving guidance on what is meant by an "objective justification" for refusing to continue employing workers beyond the age of 65? That seems a particularly important practical question.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement as a small but very important step on the road to dealing with the immense legacy of nuclear waste from the second half of the 20th century. As has been said, the solution has been around for a long time. It has been accepted that the waste should be buried. I know that CoRWM was set up to reconsider all the options, but it has returned to the same conclusion. The issue has always been: where? If there is a weak point in the Statement it is: what happens if no community is willing to take the waste? Although fine words are said about democracy and that a community will be allowed to say no, what if a local council in Wales, for the sake of argument, says yes—obviously, the Government will have to offer considerable benefit to go with the acceptance of waste—but the Welsh Assembly says no? The issue is fraught with questions. I hope that it can be worked through, because it is essential just to deal with the legacy of waste. I am glad that the terminology is "managing" now, because it certainly still cannot be viewed as disposal. The waste is not being disposed of; it is simply being managed underground.
	One of the most interesting recommendationsand government responses comes under recommendation 7, which states:
	"If a decision is taken to manage any uranium, spent nuclear fuel and plutonium as wastes".
	That is one of the biggest items in the whole report. First, there is a fair amount of such material and, secondly, there is an enormous budget implication well beyond what the Government have already costed. Will the Minister repeat the estimated cost of disposing of nuclear waste as envisaged by CoRWM? If recommendation 7 is taken on board to include all those materials, the spent plutonium will have to be moved in budgetary terms from an asset column, as it is now classified by the Government, to a cost column, with considerable implications for budgeting. I hope that safety issues will be paramount rather than accountant-speak—being worried about the shifting of figures, which will have to happen.
	The industry has been subject to constant change. Only yesterday, the formation of the new nuclear research body and the break-up of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd were announced. Reorganisation undoubtedly brings difficulties. The Government have accepted that there is an ever decreasing of expertise in this area. Although the Statement talks of independence, it will be very hard to get people who are truly independent, in the sense that they are likely to have worked for a long time in the industry. The democratic process will have to bring the checks and balances of that independence into being. I certainly hope we will have the time to examine that in this House.
	The creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which we debated in your Lordships' House during consideration of the Energy Act 2004, was a very positive move, and I hope that, in tandem with the other changes announced today, it will add impetus to dealing with the legacy of waste. None of this Statement can be taken as encouraging us to think that a future nuclear-build programme, in the unlikely event that we get there in our lifetimes, will be any more possible or likely until all these enormous questions about waste are dealt with.
	Finally, I hope that the House will now welcome CoRWM's work more than it did in a memorable debate in which I was probably the only person in your Lordships' House, apart from the Minister, to defend its work, because the committee involved had produced such a damning report on it. I hope that we can be a little more welcoming today.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses from noble colleagues. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that the problem has been around for 30 years, and so have the solutions. I am not sure whether that is literally correct, but he is generally correct that many people have considered the problem.
	Regardless of whether there is an issue between CoRWM and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the Government must agree the plans. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was set up under the Energy Act, so there are constraints. Indeed, we are considering the Government's arrangements, as the Statement said. We need a public discussion on the matter. I do not want to go over the past, because things can be misunderstood, but we also need a clear and transparent audit trail, exactly as the CoRWM process has shown. CoRWM has produced a first-class report with a first-class audit trail, and there can be no criticism of that. In some ways, that is where the answer lies in relation to the new facility siting process being divorced from the Nirex process. We must discuss how voluntarism and partnership can be linked to the scientific assessment of sites. The Nirex site list is, however, disregarded. That is what was meant by the new process being divorced from the Nirex process. One cannot wipe out what happened, but we now have a different arrangement. There is no question of going over the Nirex sites.
	I cannot answer the financial question about possible start-up costs, but point to evidence from other countries—I listed six, seven, or eight of them; I forget the exact number. We do not want to look as though we will fail. The Statement was made only today. I would not be surprised if the odd local authority had not made inquiries, because that is the way in which things will be done. We must set up a process in 2007, as we have said, so that we can assess the voluntary approach. We want an assessment and a solution based on partnership and a willingness to participate. As I have said, international experience indicates that this approach is the one that is most likely to succeed. So I do not envisage failure at the moment. It is true that the costs are large. We are talking about huge sums of money, as nobleLords know better than I do. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, funded by the Government, deals with historic waste. Any new operators must share the costs of their work.
	The Written Statement yesterday is, in a way, quite separate from today's Statement, and I am not briefed to answer questions about it. Moreover, as always, in this narrow and specialist area as in other areas where science is involved, there will be debates about the independence of the people involved. One has to be realistic. Expertise probably will come from a specific area of scientific and academic research, and one of the practicalities of the industry is that you draw on that advice. I cast no aspersions on what the noble Baroness said, but while there must be checks and balances in the governance arrangements to weigh up the risks involved in taking independent advice, just because a person has worked in the industry does not mean that their advice on the best way forwardin another context—advice based on their experience—is not valuable or not independent. We are talking about an issue where no one around now will ever be accountable for their advice. This is decades of work.
	On the question about cost implications if plutonium is declared a waste material, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will consider this as part of its strategy and planning, which will require government approval. It goes without saying that the Government are accountable to Parliament. Parliament would be involved in terms of scrutinising government actions. The planning I have referred to will include carrying out further important work to determine the costs. To be honest, I cannot go down the road of costs. All kinds of figures are bandied about and these costs will run over decades. Whatever ballpark figure one puts out, whether it is hundreds of millions or indeed billions, the costs will stretch over an indeterminate number of decades that neither I nor anyone else can begin to predict at present. Further work has got to be done.
	Finally, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, we are determined to proceed on this and to secure as wide a consensus and partnership as possible. Previous approaches have failed, and that is no criticism of either government. But the fact is that it is now time for action and we have to make some progress. The voluntary partnership approach seems to work elsewhere in the world and there is no real reason why it should not work here.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, this partnership with host communities was the pipedream of Nirex, which tried to impose the repository on West Cumbria, where I live. It was a disastrous proposition which met universal hostility in the local community. From this we should learn a clear lesson: it is highly unlikely that anyone will volunteer. I might change the phrase from nimby to wimby—"Welcome in my back yard"—but this will not be welcome in anyone's back yard.
	Is not the real answer the one that people simply refuse to examine, which we concluded at the time was the solution; that is, to have an international settlement or site somewhere in the world where everyone sends their nuclear waste. That is the long-term solution that will survive a century; it is not for every nation state to somehow deal with the matter in a local way which offends local communities.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I understand it, most of west Cumbria and the coast are not within the park authority in the first place, so that issue does not arise. But that is a minor point; the central point of the noble Lord's question relates to devolved Administrations. Today's Statement has been agreed with the devolved Administrations. The CoRWM report was published on 31 July, just after Parliament went into Recess. We are making the Statement to day because this is the first available opportunity when all three bodies have been sitting. It has not been possible since we have been back because I understand the Welsh Assembly has been in Recess, having come back earlier. If the noble Lord checks the legal arrangements he will find that nuclear waste is a devolved issue—and that, therefore, should answer the first part of his question.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, having had, for the second time this year, a three-hour black-out at home, which again reminded me of the 1960s, I have some idea of what could happen in not too many years time unless we move forward on this question. It is absolutely essential that the message is got across to the public and, in that sense, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has raised a very important point. Certainly two of the countries which come to mind, to which my noble friend referred in his list, carried out immense work with the public. The Canadians were outstanding and got a great deal of support. Admittedly it is a very large country and it is not unsurprising that some interest has been shown. But Finland, which is smaller, I think had three competitors for its storage plant. It is important that the public should understand that a number of countries have done this and how they have done it.
	Secondly, the general public's perception of nuclear waste is grossly misleading. We have heard it described in this House this afternoon as "immense." That is in the eye of the beholder. I think the last spokesperson for Greenpeace described it as "mountainous," which it is not. Therefore, it would be helpful if some very clear information could be provided to the public, to remove from people's minds what is being fed to them by those who are, I think, pushing another agenda: that of not having any further nuclear power plants.
	Maybe I am anticipating something that will come along, but most countries have offered incentives. It would be extremely encouraging for local authorities to know that there is a benefit beyond creating employment for those who do not have it. The French did remarkably well in this, but, again, that is a differently run country, although they run my electricity supply. Lastly, presumably it is possible to indicate that some parts of the country are unsuitable. Why have greater anxiety in those parts if we can say, as I am sure Mr Livingstone will say of London, that they are not suitable?

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that during the summer when the latter stages of the Bill were considered, I was absent due to illness. However, today we are considering Commons amendments. I do not consider that the Commons reasons for disagreement are very clearly stated. The reason:
	"Because it is not appropriate to require aerodrome authorities to fix their charges in the manner proposed",
	is not very good, bearing in mind that some airport authorities fix their charges in the manner proposed. The Government may well disagree with us that we should have a limit on the size of airports above which a regime would be appropriate, but it is not appropriate to say that it is not right that they fix them in the manner proposed.
	Turning to the points made by the Minister, I fully appreciate that it is most important that local issues are taken into consideration, but this needs to be looked at from the point of view of not just the airport operator but the people who live underneath airports and suffer from noise and pollution. There are instances that I brought before the House in the early stages of the Bill. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said just now, I should say that I know something about airports. I specifically visited the Birmingham area to be taken through the whole question of noise and pollution and how they are tracked there. I have been the director of an airport company. I may not have the knowledge that he does, but I am not speaking from a position of entire ignorance on the matter.
	I went to Birmingham, and the issue there was that the airspace over Birmingham airport is partly shared with Coventry airport. Coventry is quite a big airport, but it does not have a noise and pollution regime, and that raises issues of competition. They are usingthe same airspace, so the issues about whatever international conventions there may be apply to both airports. One airport, in setting its charges and having lower standards of environment or safety, can decide whether an aircraft uses it or the next airport. We want a level playing field, so that airports are competing on the basis of efficiency and not on the basis of one airport having certain standards and another having lesser standards.
	I take seriously what the Minister said about Amendment No. 4C, and if he can put on record that the Secretary of State will,
	"have regard...to the interests of persons who live in the area",
	as well as the question of whether competition between airports is affected, I will withdraw my Motion, because I would then be in a position to come to him if a particular case arose—

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we are having another debate about a vital issue that concerns us all in this House and the public at large—noise and emissions from aircraft. There has been growing interest in this and, even as we debated the Bill over the past few months, the issue has been much more in the public eye.
	I have some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but I am in the middle here. I totally agreed with the Minister when he stated that local circumstances were the most important consideration. I am very much a localist and do not like too much direction from us in this place about what happens in a local area.
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, highlighted an example. I too have visited Birmingham airport, one of two airports that are close and of a considerable size in urban areas, and where there should be some alignment of practices. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that. In spite of the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—I do not dispute what past Secretaries of State have done—it would help us all if the Minister could categorically repeat what he has just said, so that it is put determinedly in Hansard that Secretaries of State would intervene and issue directions. I do not normally like them to direct too much, but here I would very much support that. If an airport was not complying with the sort of things that we would like, the Secretary of State should definitely intervene to try to put that right. If that was the case, I would not support the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5C to Lords Amendment No. 5.
	I am sure that, by now, the House will be aware that Section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 enables the Secretary of State to take steps to limit or mitigate the effects of noise and vibration connected with the taking off or landing of aircraft at designated airports. He is not required to set any operating restrictions at night or at any other time but, if restrictions are set, they must be in the form of a numerical limit on movements by aircraft of the types that it is intended to restrict.
	In our White Paper, The Future of Air Transport, which followed extensive consultation on our longstanding aircraft noise powers, we said that we would amend the 1982 Act so that operating restrictions might in future be set on a different basis—for example, one more directly related to the noise nuisance caused. Subsections (2) to (4) of the clause as originally drafted would have allowed a future Secretary of State to impose restrictions that limited cumulative amounts of noise caused by an aircraft using a designated airport. The provisions would not have prevented movement limits being set but Ministers could have chosen to set alternative restrictions—for example, noise quotas or a limiting noise contour area. Those might have provided a more effective incentive for the use of quieter aircraft.
	In bringing forward these provisions, it was never our intention to prevent future Governments setting stringent controls on night flying at these airports. We have not sought to relax the restrictions. Any suggestion that we have should be considered in the context of our announcement on 6 June this year on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. That announcement did not provide for any slackening of current limits; it tightened a number of controls, and that demonstrates our commitment to the effective management of noise impacts.
	The restrictions regime which comes into effect on 29 October—this coming weekend—will run until October 2012. It has been set using the current legislative framework; that is, the Secretary of State's powers under Section 78 of the 1982 Act. Nor would we seek to interrupt that regime before 2012 to impose different forms of restriction. Night flying restrictions are put in place for a number of years to allow the industry to plan fleets and scheduling, and to give local stakeholders some certainty. Interrupting a regime would not be sensible or constructive. The value of movement limits to residents round the designated airports and the sense of certainty they are given is clear. Moreover, movement limits would have been a fundamental part of the next night flying regime, regardless of whether the Bill received Royal Assent before the new restrictions were set.
	There have been advances in technology since the 1982 Act was passed, and a movements limit alone would be a pretty blunt instrument as that would not directly influence the types of aircraft used at night or control the amount of noise permitted. That is why noise quotas are set alongside the movement limits at present, as a secondary control to drive the use of the quietest aircraft available.
	I am disappointed that the Government's arguments in favour of amending the Act were not accepted. However, in the interests of moving forward with the many other worthwhile provisions in the Bill, the other place has now proposed an amendment that would remove subsections (2) to (4) of the clause as originally drafted. This means that the relevant provisions of the 1982 Act will, as at present, say unambiguously that any future restrictions will have to be set by limiting the number of aircraft movements as they are now.
	By tabling the amendment, we accept that this is not the right time to make a change to the legislation. However, the Government still think that there would be merit in giving the Secretary of State a more flexible power to set such restrictions. That would be possible only if a new legislative opportunity arose. As yet, no such opportunity is apparent. I am therefore clearly signalling to the House that we have nothing in the offing in that respect. The Government seek to continue a balanced approach to controlling and mitigating the noise impacts of night flying at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
	We have now delivered our commitment to maintain strict controls on night flying and to set those controls by limiting both aircraft movements and noise quota until at least 2012, as stated in the decision announced on 6 June. We remain of the view that it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to have more flexible powers to control aircraft noise at designated airports but accept that this Bill is not the vehicle for that. Accordingly, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5C to Lords Amendment No. 5—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I take the opportunity to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about possible future increases in the Secretary of State's powers. I beg the Minister to take this matter seriously. I recall our debate on the White Paper on airports policy a couple of years ago. Two questions were raised which worried me very much at the time and continue to worry me. First, in considering the possible expansion of Stansted, the Government's document made no reference to the fact that the southern boundary of Stansted Airport was the northern boundary of a unique forest in southern England which is regarded by dendrologists as a matter of great importance. It is astonishing that the department responsible for environmental matters did not even refer to that.
	The second issue is the possibility of creating a new airport in Sheppey. There was also a short page on that, and it relied exclusively on the danger that an airport there would have to migrating birds. The paper did not examine the issue properly or reveal that it would be perfectly possible to move the bird sanctuary created by the RSPB a few miles further to the east, thus making it possible to consider a new airport serving London which would be approachable over sea any time of the day or night, open 24 hours a day and very close to the Channel Tunnel link.
	I hope that when future plans are made for these important decisions on airports—this is not specifically on the subject of the amendment today—great care is taken by the department to ensure that the highest quality of environmental information is available to it. I think the White Paper showed that that was not the case.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. This group of amendments deals primarily with the provision of reports to individual patients, and annual reports.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, made to Clause 3(2) in the other place, provide that redress will now ordinarily also include the giving of a report on the action that has been, or will be, taken at local level to prevent similar cases arising. During the debate in both this House and another place, the point has been well made that patients harmed during their NHS healthcare often say that they do not want that to happen to anyone else.
	There will be occasions where mistakes can simply be ascribed to genuine human error or where no procedural changes need to be made, and there a report of that type will not be appropriate. In these specific types of circumstances, the scheme may provide that a report will not be necessary. Ordinarily, though, such a report will now be provided.
	Amendment No. 6, agreed in the other place, requires the scheme to provide for the findings of an investigation to be recorded in a report, which is to be made available on their request to the individual seeking redress. To reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for scheme members, we do not wish to impose an extra burden on them to provide the investigation report in every case. In some cases, an explanation may be adequate, but these amendments now ensure that, ordinarily, the investigation report will be provided if requested.
	The amendments enable the scheme to provide that the report need not be provided before an offer is made or before proceedings are terminated, which is also intended to reduce the administrative burden on scheme members. It is envisaged that when the offer of redress is made an investigation report will be sent to the individual, where they want a copy of it. That will give them a complete set of documentation, which they can then consider with their legal adviser when the offer under the scheme is being assessed.
	The amendments also enable the scheme to specify other circumstances where the reports need not be provided. That is intended to be used for rare cases where, for example, the person seeking redress is not the patient and it is considered appropriate to withhold certain confidential health information. I wish to provide reassurance that any exceptions will be the subject of full consultation.
	I hope that the amendments made in the other place will satisfy noble Lords that we fully intendthe investigative process to be transparent. The investigation report will not be kept back on grounds that it is privileged, nor will it be claimed that investigation reports are "without prejudice" and inadmissible in any subsequent legal action.
	Regarding Amendments Nos. 11, 14 and 15, it has been the Government's intention to require a member of the redress scheme to prepare and publish an annual report about cases falling under the scheme and the lessons to be learnt from them. However, Clause 10(2)(i) of the Bill, as drafted, provided that a scheme may require a member of it to prepare and publish an annual report about such cases and their lessons. These amendments are a response to the discussions that have taken place in both this House and another place. They place on the face of the Bill a requirement on scheme members to publish an annual report. The "may" has been replaced by "must".
	Finally in this group, I turn to AmendmentsNos. 12 and 13. Both are minor drafting amendments and clarify existing policy. Amendment No. 12 leaves out the words "a specified person" in Clause 10(2)(h) and replaces it with the words,
	"an individual of a specified description".
	The amendment makes clearer the intention that the scheme may require a member to give an individual of a specified description responsibility for overseeing the scheme. The provision will enable the schemeto specify qualifications and experience, to be determined after consultation with stakeholders, that such an individual must possess to undertake the role.
	Amendment No. 13 splits Clause 10(2)(h) to avoid any implication that only a person who has given responsibility for overseeing the carrying out of functions can be given responsibility for advising on lessons to be learnt. As we draw up the secondary legislation, we may wish to enable bodies to appoint two different types of people to carry out the two functions. For that reason, it again seems preferable to retain flexibility by splitting up the function. I commend the amendments.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	3: Clause 6, page 4, line 10, leave out "(3) and" and insert "(2A) to"

Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
	When the Bill was last in this House, it was amended to require the Secretary of State for Health to make provision for the appointment of patient-redress investigators. There was to be a panel of independent investigators, and the Healthcare Commission was to maintain a list of those investigators and oversee them. The independent investigation was to be confined to fact finding, and the scheme authority was to have no role whatever in investigations. It could not even provide advice or guidance to scheme members. To refresh the memories of noble Lords, the amendments were passed here by the narrowest of margins—one vote—and were comprehensively rejected in the other place by 95 votes.
	When the Bill went to Report in the other place, there was no attempt to reinstate references to patient-redress investigators or the Healthcare Commission. I believe this to have been an appropriate response. The model passed in this House suffered from excessive cost and impracticality. On that occasion, I mentioned that Department of Health economists estimated that the cost would be £41 million a year.
	We are now presented with a group of amendments that would enable the scheme to provide for independent oversight of investigation, with the person overseeing the investigation required to be independent of the scheme member in question and the body or person being investigated. I suggest that this is an attempt to reintroduce the concept, firmly rejected in the other place, of independent oversight of the initial investigation. This again raises many unanswered questions, the obvious ones being: who is to provide the independent oversight; how will these people be chosen, and by whom; what qualifications are they to have; to whom, if anyone, will they be answerable; how and by whom is administrative support and accommodation to be provided; and what if the member carrying out the investigation and the independent overseer do not agree about the investigation report?
	In Committee in the other place we were toldthat there would be the same administration, but operating under the direction of an independent person, so that there would be no new bureaucracy. This seems to imply that the investigation will merely be checked by an independent person but from the wording of the amendment before us, I do now know how we can be sure of that. It seems strange to be introducing at this stage in the Bill an un-thought-out set of proposals that is uncosted and which must make the whole scheme more bureaucratic and difficult to explain to patients.
	It is not as though we have not provided for independent oversight, and I know that Members on the Benches opposite have been concerned about independence in this Bill. Should the investigation not be carried out properly, the Bill has in place a complaints system, ultimately to the ombudsman, who is of course fully independent of the NHS and the Government and who may be used if a patienthas a complaint about maladministration in an investigation which has fallen below the standard expected. Ann Abraham, the Health Service Commissioner, has welcomed the fact that the operation of the scheme will fall clearly within her jurisdiction subject to the usual conditions set out in the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993. She said:
	"I hope the fact that an independent review of complaints about the scheme will be available will give reassurance to both complainants and the NHS bodies involved".
	It certainly gives reassurance to the Government.
	The Bill also takes powers that will enable the scheme to have other elements of independence. There may, where appropriate, be independent medical advice and evidence, and free independent legal advice that must be provided to people to whom an offer of redress is made. We have existing powers in Clause 10(2)(a) which will enable the scheme to require its members to charge an individual of a specified description with the responsibility for overseeing the carrying out of specified functions. This enables the scheme itself to provide that the person must oversee the investigation at the local level and have particular qualifications and/or experience. We envisage that the person given the task of overseeing the carrying out of investigations will ensure that appropriate information is properly collected and provided to the scheme authority. This will provide an additional check on the standard of investigation.
	Finally, responding to concerns expressed by noble Lords about the need for an independent check on performance in the operation of the redress scheme, we intend that consideration of the effectiveness of the operation of the NHS redress scheme, including investigations carried out under the scheme, will be included as part of the Healthcare Commission's annual review of the provision of healthcare by and for NHS bodies. The intention is that the Secretary of State would include a new standard relating to redress and that the Healthcare Commission would include new criteria against which the operation of the scheme would be reviewed. This role can be taken on by the Healthcare Commission without the need for any amendment to its existing powers. Because I know of the concerns about independence, I have gone through this to demonstrate the wide provision in the Bill for independent elements at the various stages.
	I want to say a little about natural justice because the term has been bandied about in this context on the issue. We need to be clear whether it is at stake here. It has been said in the Commons Committee that:
	"Independence is a basic principle of natural justice enshrined in the rule against bias that no man may be judge in his own case".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 26/706; col. 1539.]
	That is absolutely right, but the rules of natural justice are rules of procedure. The common law recognises procedural fairness and this same principle is reflected in the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. If decisions are being taken which determine a person's civil rights and obligations, then the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be met. There must be a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. We accept that.
	However, the redress scheme will not involve any determination of civil rights and obligations. An offer may be made to a complainant, but it is only an offer. No rights will be determined when cases are investigated under the scheme in an effort to resolve disputes without having to go to court. It is standard practice for potential defendants to investigate, to try to discover what happened, and, if appropriate, to try to resolve matters without legal proceedings. Neither the rules of natural justice nor the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights require an independent investigation procedure to be established under the redress scheme. We have gone into this with a great deal of care, and this is the established legal advice in this particular area. There is no question of the NHS or the NHS Litigation Authority acting as judge in these cases.
	I fear that some of the objections in this area lose sight of the purpose behind this Bill: to provide patients with the speedy resolution of low-value monetary claims without the need to go to court. We do not intend to set up a second independent judicial process or to duplicate the existing court systems. Throughout this Bill, we have argued that where a mistake is made, it is right that the scheme member promptly investigates the case, where appropriate makes an offer to resolve it, and learns from the mistake. If we remove or in some way fetter that responsibility, we damage the integrity of the scheme.
	I must stress that the proposals put forward in this amendment are bound to lead to considerable additional bureaucracy, and they must lead to some costs—we do not know at the moment what those costs would be. It would mean there was no single body with overall responsibility to ensure consistency of approach, cost-effectiveness and good standards. If investigations are to be independent, it is hard to see how a separate bureaucracy is to be avoided, even where the role is limited to oversight. This is why we believe we should accept the Commons amendments, and not pursue the ideas and proposals in the amendments to them.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Warner.)

Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4A and shall also speak to Amendment No. 5A and Amendment No. 16A. I have listened carefully to the Minister and thank him for his full remarks. I would be the first to acknowledge that we have come a long way during the course of this Bill. There are a number of amendments incorporated into it as well as undertakings given by the Government that are positive and welcome. Yet it is with disappointment as well as a sense of genuine puzzlement that we on these Benches view the Government's resistance to the single most important concept which we have sought to introduce into the Bill and into the scheme—independent oversight.
	We genuinely want this scheme to work. I am not in the business of making life difficult for the Government just for the sake of it. We all know and all agree that there needs to be a workable alternative to civil litigation for patients who feel aggrieved about treatment they have received from the NHS. One of the main ingredients of a workable alternative is that it has to be credible. It has to command confidence. Patients have to believe that it will produce a fair result. What have we got? We have a scheme that will see a patient's application for redress disappear into a closed process, one that is the very opposite of transparent. The patient has no idea whether the facts of his case have been looked at fairly or fully.
	Additionally, we have, examining the claims and acting as the scheme authority, a body that is a part of the NHS itself. The NHSLA is not, in a true sense, independent of the interests of the trust whose actions it will be examining. Why is it not? Because one of the main functions of the NHSLA at present—a function which it fulfils with considerable success—is to defend the health service against claims made against it. That is essentially its current role. It is there not to take the patient's part but to act on behalf of the NHS. How can patients regard the NHSLA, for all its in-house expertise, as having the necessary degree of objectivity and independence to do what is fair and right? They surely cannot. That is why we have sought at an earlier stage, with the approval of the House, to introduce amendments designed to import into the process that vital element of independence.
	It is important to emphasise one thing here: independent oversight is needed at the initial stage of the process when the facts are being assembled. It is not necessary or appropriate thereafter. I am not suggesting that there should be independent oversight of the NHSLA when it comes to consider issues of fault and liability—it will consider those issues and make an offer of compensation at the end or not as the case may be; the patient can take the offer or leave it—but unless the patient is confident that the factual basis on which his claim has been considered is accurate and fair, it is very difficult to see how the scheme will command his confidence.
	There are all kinds of ways in which this element of independence could be imported. At Report stage I proposed that there should be a panel of independent redress investigators, who would act rather as a coroner does when conducting an inquest. I am not bringing that idea back because the Government have told us repeatedly that it would be too expensive. In these amendments I am asking the Government to accept the principle of independent oversight of the fact-finding part of the process. I am not being prescriptive about how this should be achieved—after all, this is largely a skeleton Bill; a great deal will be left to regulations—but, as one idea, I would propose that where the actions of a particular trust were the subject of a redress claim, a non-executive director of a different trust could be brought in to provide the necessary element of independent scrutiny and oversight. The cost of such an arrangement should not be a factor. Indeed, it should be no greater than the cost of the Government's proposals. Someone has to be responsible for ensuring that the trust assembles the facts of a case fairly and fully. Instead of it being someone within the trust itself, I am saying that it might be someone from another trust. The cost implications are surely de minimis.
	My amendments preserve the concept of independence, to be fleshed out in regulations, and they also preserve the necessary accompaniment to independence—the separation of fact-finding from fault-finding. The scheme itself covers both elements but the wording is designed to make clear that there are two separate processes—fact-finding and fault-finding—under the aegis of the trust and the NHSLA respectively.
	In another place, the Minister, Andy Burnham, conceded that the scheme would have to comprise de facto a two-stage process. I suggest, therefore, as regards this point, that there is not much separating the Minister and me. Indeed, one has only to look at Section 2 of the Inquiries Act to see that the separation of fact-finding and fault-finding is one that the Government accept as a way of achieving a ready separation between what is privileged and what is not privileged and as being conducive to achieving natural justice.
	Natural justice is what these amendments seek to achieve. I note that the Minister argues that this concern is out of place in the context of the redress scheme. I am sorry to hear him say that, because I disagree. It really is a question of patient confidence in the scheme. It is, I suggest, a nicety to point out that this is not a judicial process. Of course we agree that it is not a judicial process, but the patient will want fairness. I very much hope that the Minister can take these points on board and I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say. I beg to move.
	Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate, since health matters are generally considered to be outwith the remit of Scottish Members. However, the issues of redress, and of confidence in the medical profession and the health trusts, are very important. I do not know how we will get that confidence. In all the cases I have dealt with in my years as a Member in the other place—and in some personal experiences, which I have related to this House before and will not repeat, as the issue is now resolved—generally speaking, people who do not have confidence in the system will never accept a decision that goes against them. That is the nub of the problem.
	I honestly do not know how one can get independence in the health service. The noble Earl suggests that someone from a different trust could be brought in. If my memory serves me correctly, this often happens with police authorities: a chief constable from one authority is brought in to oversee, or look at the problems in, another authority. What is the cry? "You cannot trust the police to investigate themselves". I suggest that exactly the same thing would happen in this case. It is quite wrong to sow the seeds of the suspicion that the medical profession cannot investigate itself. For my sins, I sat as a lay member of the General Medical Council on its old disciplinary committee. I was constantly told that, although I was a lay member and independent, I could not be trusted because, not being a medic, I would automatically accept the views of the medical profession. All I say in this debate is that we have come a long way with this Bill. I wish we could achieve an absolute guarantee of transparency, of fairness, and that in every case the right result would be achieved. What we can hope for from this Bill is that the progress made will lead to more satisfaction, less delay and better care of the patient.
	Baroness Murphy: My Lords, I was a strong supporter of this Bill at Second Reading. It is fundamentally worthwhile to get early resolution of these cases, keeping down legal fees and the frustration of patients. I have administered complaints systems in the NHS for the past 15 years or so. The problem has always been that when local resolution fails in-house, and goes on to the next stage of the convenor system, it is perceived by patients to be partisan. As one patient's relative said to me: "You think you are appealing to an independent person, and you get an answer on the headed notepaper of the organisation you are complaining about". The system thereby encourages people to seek independent legal advice. Unless we have, in here, the principle that the fact-finding, at least, should be independent, we will not encourage patients to accept the fact-finders' reports., We should remember that fact-finding is usually the most disputed part of the case.
	I know the Minister is concerned about the costs, but we do not yet have regulations worked out. There is everything to play for in the practical implementation of the scheme. We know that it is possible to set up panels of people from the local community to do a number of jobs around the NHS, very professionally, with the right support and training, without incurring costs. For example, people who serve on research ethics committees have to do very complex work for which they do not get a great deal of financial reward. They do it because the work is interesting.
	It can easily be worked out how these schemes could be administered so that there was an independent fact-finding element. We have heard of one possibility which I believe would be quite practical. In any case, fact finders will require training, and that will cost, whether it is done in-house or out of house. It is a detailed job that needs a lot of professional work, but it does not have to be expensive.
	This issue could be delegated to regulations but having an independent fact finder is such a fundamental principle of an effective complaints system that it should be in the Bill. It would add immeasurably to the confidence that patients have in the scheme, which is why I have added my name to Amendment No. 4A.

Earl Howe: moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree"

Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	7: Clause 8, page 4, line 41, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (4)"

Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B not moved.]
	8: Page 5, line 1, leave out "in connection with proceedings under the scheme"

Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9A and 10A. I should say at the outset that it is not my intention to press these amendments but I think that it is right to take a brief time to debate them. We need to hear from the Government in a little more detail why they have changed their minds about offering free legal advice throughout the redress process.
	I do not have, and never have had, a problem about free legal advice being available under the scheme at the point at which the NHS local authority comes forward with an offer. It is at that stage that the aggrieved person wishes to assess the adequacy of the offer and to weigh up the alternatives open to him if he decides not to accept it. To make those decisions, he needs legal advice. Perhaps more importantly, he needs legal advice on the implications of his accepting an offer from the NHSLA, because the acceptance of an offer brings to an end his legal right to pursue civil litigation on that matter. Clause 8 (2) covers that situation, and it is important. I have no argument with it.
	But here we find that in another place the Government have agreed to the insertion of Clause 8(1), which would apparently allow for a complainant to have access to free legal advice from the very outset of the redress process. That is a significant changeof mind. In Grand Committee, the Minister acknowledged that at the beginning of the process support to the patient would be provided by PALS and ICAS. I had reservations about PALS and ICAS and suggested that we might think about someone more akin to a Mackenzie friend to support the patient, but the one thing that neither the Minister nor I envisaged was the intervention of lawyers.
	There are two reasons why I am resistant to the presence of lawyers at this stage of the process. The first is cost. One reason why we all agree that we need to find an alternative to civil litigation is that it is costly to all concerned. Although the Government have not said it in so many words, they surely cannot be oblivious to the size of the legal aid bill associated with civil claims against the health service—it is enormous—yet here we seem to be reimporting one of the features of the current unsatisfactory system into the new one.
	The second reason that I balk at the amendment is that I cannot see why lawyers are necessary at this point of the process. The whole point of the redress scheme is that it affords a quicker, less cumbersome way for a patient to receive an explanation; where appropriate, an apology for treatment that has gone wrong; and, in appropriate cases, an offer of financial compensation. By making an application under the scheme, you lose none of your legal rights; you are simply making an application. The added value of a lawyer at this stage of the process is therefore unclear to me. I have heard the argument that, if you make an application under the scheme and have it rejected on the grounds that it is ineligible, you might need a lawyer to contest that decision. Again, I do not follow that argument. If an application is rejected on grounds of ineligibility, the reasons for the decision will presumably be given, and that is certainly a situation in which ICAS could be brought in to offer the patient appropriate guidance. But a rejection need not be the end of the road: civil litigation may still be open as an alternative. Once you import lawyers into this early stage, you introduce elements appropriate to an adversarial, judicial process. The redress schemeis not a judicial process, nor is it adversarial; it is essentially an offer-making process which is consensual.
	I have noticed in my time working on this Bill that there are only two groups of people who believe we need more lawyers for the NHS redress scheme—the lawyers themselves, and those with an interest in promoting the services of lawyers. It is unfortunate that the Government have allowed themselves to be beguiled into modifying the Bill in this way. I put it no stronger than that.
	In Amendment No. 10 we also see that the Government have changed their minds on the question of having jointly instructed medical experts. They were always in the Bill, but here we have a new subsection about joint instruction. Again, that concept introduces a dimension that we see operating in the courts. The redress scheme is not the same as a court. It is an executive process. A joint instruction implies that an adversarial tussle is going on. As I have said, I do not view the redress scheme in that way, and I did not think that the Government did either. What will be the status of the medical experts' evidence? Will it be privileged, or will it be available to the patient at the end of the process? That is an important point.
	In our earlier debates the Minister was quite clear that some elements of the NHSLA's deliberations would have to remain legally privileged. I am not sure whether the Minister has changed his position, but should be interested to know whether that is so. If he has not changed his position, I understand exactly why that should be. If the patient is party to a joint instruction it implies that he or she should be entitled to know what evidence is given as a consequence.
	I should be grateful if the Minister could elucidate a little further how he sees this provision working and exactly how it fits with the concept of the scheme as the Government envisage. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree and do propose Amendment No. 8B in lieu".—(Earl Howe.)

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I understand it this new clause was tabled on Report in the Commons. Views were expressed outside the Commons—for example by Action against Medical Accidents—that some reinforcing mechanism was needed in the Bill. The new clause seeks to reinforce the message that scheme members and the scheme authority should actively seek resolution under the scheme:
	I can understand where the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is coming from. But the clause is not meaningless; it makes it very clear that there may be a legal remedy if the duty to promote resolution is not properly exercised. We felt that it was important to put this matter beyond peradventure, given some of the points made. This provision was generally approved in the other place as a way to give a clear signal that the redress scheme is intended as the primary means by which disputes are resolved, so far as is reasonably practicable. That is the reason we went ahead with this particular provision.

Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	19: Clause 19, page 12, line 10, leave out subsection (6)

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the thinking behind Amendment No 1. It is a matter of English. If the Minister says in terms that a search may only be carried out in the presence of another member of staff, as a matter of English that is fair enough, but if there is a possibility of a search being carried out without another member of staff being present, that would be terribly wrong, not only from the point of view of protecting the pupil but that of protecting the teacher from false allegations. It would be very easy for a person who is carrying a weapon and who is discovered in flagrante delicto so doing to blame the teacher concerned and to suggest that there had been some impropriety, some planting of evidence or something of that sort. It is essential to have two people to carry out searches. I hope to hear the Minister agree.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3 I hope that our happy agreements are going to continue. I have tabled it to give the Government the opportunity to carry out a commitment that I learned of recently. It would create a new offence of recording a criminal offence for personal gratification—something otherwise known in the newspapers as "happy slapping".
	Noble Lords will be all too well aware from those press reports that there has been much concern about the prevalence of a new sort of activity. People with ready access to a camera phone or smart-phone that can take still or video pictures can use them to record a criminal event. That usually involves a group, perhaps kicking, beating or sometimes even raping an individual. The pictures are then transmitted to others so that they can all have a good laugh at the victim and applaud the criminal. Often, the pictures are posted on the internet. To take the footage is a despicable way to behave. The whole purpose behind it is for people to enjoy watching—not to encourage others to commit the offence, which would obviously be a conspiracy—but simply for the person in some sick way to enjoy what they see.
	Incidents reported in the press here have ranged from minor assaults to the killing of the Soho barman, David Morley, in a gang attack on the South Bank in London in October 2004—all recorded and circulated on mobile phones. I am aware that the mobile telecoms industry has put in place measures to assist in the prevention and detection of such behaviour. I am grateful to Aleyne Johnston, the government and public policy executive at Orange, for her very helpful and detailed briefing on these matters and for her support for my amendment.
	The amendment introduces a new offence that would make it illegal for any person intentionally to make an audio or visual recording of a criminal offence for the purpose of obtaining gratification for himself or another. I am trying to ensure that those who record criminal events for the purposes of prosecuting them are not caught out by the new offence. I want to protect the police and journalists who take pictures and pass them on to police, using them in a perfectly laudable way. I also want to protect those quick-thinking members of the public—for example, those who were present at the horrendous events in London last summer—who take video footage or still pictures on their cameras and hand them over to the police. The pictures taken then were invaluable in backing up CCTV footage.
	I intend to protect all those innocent applications of the use of mobile telephony to take pictures, while trying to target those who take pictures for a sickening purpose. I believe that the drafting ensures that only those who are seeking to obtain gratification for themselves or another would be committing an offence. Police, journalists and members of the public who take pictures for detection, prevention, solution or reporting of crime would not fall foul of the offence. They are clearly not seeking to obtain gratification for themselves or another. Neither are the police when they take videos of offences such as dangerous driving on the motorway and then allow them to be shown on TV. That is clearly for educational reasons—to deter others from committing offences.
	I did not move my original amendment on Report, having debated it in Committee, because the Government indicated that they were not prepared to make any concessions on the matter. Although I felt strongly that my amendment was the right thing to do, I did not wish unnecessarily to take up the time of the House at that stage at a late hour. However, developments since Report have persuaded me that I should bring back my amendment on Third Reading, so that the Government can provide an explanation and clarification of comments made by the right honourable gentleman, Jack Straw, in Business Questions in another place just last Thursday. I have redrafted my original amendment so that it includes a new subsection (2) to respond to the specific point made by Mr Straw.
	He was asked by Iain Wright, the Labour MP for Hartlepool, whether he would arrange for time to be given to a debate on YouTube. Mr Wright said that he was concerned about a posting on it from his constituency entitled, "Milton Road Fight Club". It shows a man being attacked in the street and kicked in the face until he is unconscious. Mr Wright said that he was worried that,
	"acts of violence and instances of happy slapping recorded on mobile phones are being transferred to the web for wider consumption".
	I entirely agree with him. Mr Wright went on to ask for a debate so that Members of another place could discuss how they might help to stop the problem.
	Lo and behold, Mr Straw's response was to state that the Commons did not need time for a debate because it was already in the pipeline. He said that another place,
	"will discuss the Violent Crime Reduction Bill during the next week, and I hope that he raises the matter in relation to an appropriate amendment. There is a very serious issue about how such videos should better be controlled".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/06; col. 1025.]
	But, in Committee, the Government had already rejected my amendment to deal with happy slapping, so how on earth would another place have the opportunity to discuss that, unless the Government are minded to accept my amendment today? My new subsection (2) does exactly what Mr Straw hoped that his honourable friend Mr Wright would do: it makes it an offence for anyone to upload or place on the internet an audio or visual recording made for the purpose of obtaining gratification for himself or another. The word "gratification" already appears in legislation, but I understand from the Public Bill Office that the word "upload" does not yet. So, under its advice, I have used the words, "place on the internet".
	Presumably, the Government will now accept my amendment, as I am only doing what the leader of another place wants—what he asked his honourable friend to do as recently as last Thursday; what he obviously thought that the Home Office had already agreed should be an amendment to the Bill. Without my amendment, no debate can take place in the Commons when the Bill returns to another place next Monday. Let us help another place to have that debate. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her introduction to happy slapping, and I congratulate her on her persistence in raising the issue again and on her diligence in following matters in another place. I will deal with this and other issues in turn.
	As the noble Baroness has explained, the amendment attempts to tackle the unsavoury practice of recording offences, often on a mobile phone,for personal gratification, and publishing those recordings on the internet. It is clear that the aim of the amendment is to create an offence to ensure that any person who participates in happy-slapping incidents can be prosecuted under the law. I think we all agree that incidents of happy slapping can be vicious and traumatic for the victim, and the Government condemn the practice entirely, as does everyone else. We are therefore naturally sympathetic to the aim of the amendment. However, we have already done quite a lot of work to investigate the issue, and we have sought views from other government departments and agencies since the noble Baroness first raised the issue quite properly in Committee. We have tried to focus on identifying whether there is a gap in the legislation and, although we sympathise with the objectives of the amendment, we remain sceptical that there is a need for a new offence of recording a criminal offence, as proposed in the amendment.
	The noble Baroness's approach is not supported by ACPO or the CPS, who have told us that they know of no cases where prosecutions have failed or have not proceeded because of a gap in the law. There is already adequate criminal law to deal with anyone involved in an incident of happy slapping, and we are confident that any individual who is involved in such an incident in any way will be committing a criminal offence and will therefore be liable to be prosecuted for that offence.
	Under subsection (1) of the amendment, a person who recorded a violent offence should be criminally liable, either because they also committed the offence being filmed, or because they were involved in the planning of the offence and so would be open to charges of conspiracy, incitement, or aiding and abetting, or were involved in a joint enterprise to commit the offence. I reiterate—noble Lords will be already aware of this—that a person does not have to make physical contact with the victim to commit what is an extremely serious criminal offence. Aiding, abetting or inciting an offence can be subject to the same penalties as committing the offence, and therefore an individual who does this can be dealt with as robustly as those directly involved. Moreover, happy slapping that is an element of a violent offence should be taken into account as an aggravating factor of that offence under current sentencing guidelines. This type of offence would usually involve three factors: planning, offenders operating in groups or gangs, and additional degradation of the victim. These factors would apply to all those committing the offence, not only to the person doing the filming.
	Subsection (2) of the amendment relates to the newer offence of downloading on to the internet an audio or visual recording of a criminal offence. Under the current law, anyone who publishes material on the internet that is held to be obscene under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is committing a criminal offence. It is also an offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 to transmit, by means of a public electronic communications network such as a mobile phone, images that are,
	"grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".
	Material that is not caught by this legislation is widely available for the general public to see elsewhere, for example in the media and the entertainment industry, and is not subject to criminal law. In this sense, the issue under consideration goes far beyond images on the internet, and it would not be appropriate to legislate only against images on this medium.
	I am afraid that the amendment also has some drafting difficulties that could render it unworkable. First, the amendment would make it an offence to record any criminal offence. By not restricting this to violent offences, we could be criminalising the recording of anything from a minor traffic infringement to much more serious crimes. The amendment would also require there to be intention before an offence is committed. However, it is not clear whether the intention relates solely to the filming of the act in question or to the filming of a criminal offence. In other words, it is not clear whether the person must know that the act they are filming for gratification is in fact a criminal offence.
	Finally, the proposed offence would require the recording to be for the gratification of the individual or another person. Although there are currently 14 references to gratification in legislation, they all relate to sexual gratification. It is not clear what would be caught by the term "gratification". For example, it is not clear whether publishing such material for legitimate purposes—for example, as CCTV footage as part of the news or a "Crimewatch"-type programme, many of which can be viewed on the internet—would be for personal gratification, and whether or not gratification in this sense would be legitimate.
	As noble Lords will be aware, many news and other television programmes or clips can now be viewed over the internet. Even if a defence along these lines were included, there would be significant evidential difficulties, for example in establishing whether the offence being uploaded was real or staged and, if staged, therefore not a criminal offence. It is true that many of us find certain material available on the internet distasteful. However, I should say for the record that the vast majority of the internet industry takes a responsible approach to the content that it hosts, both of its own volition and in co-operation with law enforcement and government agencies. Where the industry is advised that the content that it hosts contravenes legislation or its broader acceptable-use policy—many companies' policies provide for them to remove material that will cause distress to an individual—they will readily remove it. Any individual who is concerned about the contents of a particular website can approach the relevant internet service provider to ask it to remove either the site or some of the material hosted on it.
	The Government accept the noble Baroness's concerns and, as I said at the outset, are sympathetic to the aim of the amendment. However, we are not convinced that there is a gap in current legislation. We do, of course, want to ensure that the law is enforced fully, consistently and robustly, and we think that by working with ACPO, the CPS and the Sentencing Guidelines Council we can ensure that the police, prosecutors and sentencers have the proper guidance to enable them to deal appropriately with incidents of happy slapping.
	We also want to send out a clear message to children that incidents of happy slapping are abhorrent and will not be tolerated. We are therefore working with the Department for Education and Skills on how we can best educate young people, who are often the group exposed to incidents of happy slapping, about the seriousness of committing a criminal offence of assault and, indeed, about the seriousness of the penalties for crimes of this nature. I realise that this may be something of a disappointing response to the noble Baroness, although I have indicated our general support for what she is attempting to achieve; that is, to ensure that people are fully aware of the abhorrent nature of happy slapping and that the full force of the law can be used against them for perpetrating this appalling crime.
	The noble Baroness made some salient points about my right honourable friend Jack Straw and his comments in another place. I have now looked at what he said. I think that the Leader of another place was making an observation in a way designed to be helpful, to assist his honourable friend Iain Wright, the Member for Hartlepool, in finding a venue to hold a lengthier discussion on the issue of YouTube. I think he said that he hoped that the issue would be raised with an appropriate amendment. In a sense we have done that and the noble Baroness has been helpful in that regard. My right honourable friend simply encouraged his honourable friend to use the opportunity of perhaps having an amendment to the Bill and perhaps returning it to another place for there to be a discussion. I do not think that he made a commitment or asked Iain Wright to do anything. It was just one of those moments when Jack Straw was trying to be helpful, as he is on many occasions.
	I am grateful for the opportunity provided by the noble Baroness to discuss this issue further. I have tried to go through in detail the way we see the issue and how we feel it is best dealt with. In those terms, I hope that she has found my response useful.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord has now made much clearer the Government's objections than he was able to in Committee, and of course I understand that my drafting is not perfect. The noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Thomas of Gresford, were worried about how wide the offence would go and who it would capture. I was not in a position to explore these issues further on Report—I gave an explanation at the time, and therefore it was not possible to knock off the rough edges of the amendment. Given that, I offer it again to the House today, but in a slightly different form.
	The Minister spoke of the drafting rather than the objective. He shares my aims and concerns, but has said that there is no gap in the current legislation. This is a matter that is abhorrent in nature. Happy slapping is not something that should be tolerated and it is clear that Jack Straw agrees. The Minister has said that his right honourable friend was trying to be helpful in another place. Well, he was helpful to me. It is one of those occasions when I shall remember his words very clearly indeed. The Minister is inviting me to believe that the Leader of the House of Commons does not understand the rules of amendments in lieu that proceed when we have exchanges between both Houses. The right honourable Jack Straw has been in Parliament for more years than me and has vastly more experience than I have now or ever could have, so I find that difficult to swallow. It is clear that Jack Straw believed this Bill would be in another place and could be amended in such a way that Mr Wright would be able to table his amendment. If he did not believe that, he was misleading another place, and I do not believe that Jack Straw was doing that. I shall give him the opportunity to satisfy his honourable friends in another place. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I briefly rise to support my noble friend's amendment, to which I have added my name. I certainly understand and sympathise with the consternation of the reputable dealers in airguns across the country, both registered and unregistered, who find themselves faced with this restraint upon their trade after a consultation that took place some time ago, yet where we have still not seen the publications and analysis of the responses to that consultation.
	My noble friend says that he simply seeks, onthe record, a statement of assurances that the Government has already been able to give in writing. My noble friend is right to do so because these are important matters. I am certainly pleased that they will be thereby resolved.
	Can the Minister also respond to the point I put at Committee, which has so far gone unanswered? I asked whether the Government have taken into account the fact that not all air weapons have a specific number, so that it is more difficult to carry out any registration. I am aware that it could be advantageous for the trade were the Government to adopt a pragmatic approach of allowing registration by batches of sale. The Minister said that he would give "further thought" to that matter. What is the result of that further reflection?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for joining us in your Lordships' House today and for moving his amendment. It enables me to place on record my thanks to him not only for the diligent and courteous way in which he has conducted himself during the debates and in raising these questions and issues, but also for seeking clarification on behalf of the Gun Trade Association and lobby.
	The amendment challenges the Government to justify the inclusion of Clauses 31 and 32 and to show that they will be effective in tackling air weapon misuse. I know that the Gun Trade Association unreservedly condemns the misuse of air weapons—as we all do—and has done much in the past to promulgate safe and responsible handling. However, although there has been some recent improvement in the situation, the level of misuse remains a matter of real concern. In 2004-05, there were 11,825 crimes in which air weapons were used, resulting in 1,502 cases of injury, including—sadly—143 serious injuries. Occasionally the use of air weapons results in fatal injury, as occurred in Glasgow last year when two year-old Andrew Morton was killed.
	All of this adds up to what we all agree is an unacceptable situation. We pledged in our party's last manifesto that we would tighten the law on airguns. Clearly one way of doing this would be to make all air weapons subject to certification but we recognise that this would impose a considerable administrative burden on all concerned. We concluded that restricting the points of sale to responsible registered dealers would help tackle the problem at source and, in any event, be more proportionate in its effect on legitimate user.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, seeks to establish whether the misuse of air weapons stems from those bought from retailers and by mail order or from weapons acquired through private sales. It also requires the Home Secretary to present research findings on this point to both Houses before the relevant clauses are brought into force. There are currently no comprehensive statistics, research or other studies on where offenders obtained their air weapons. Although it is very likely that some will have been obtained through private sales, I am equally sure that some will have come direct from retailers. I do not think this is generally disputed. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence and the Government do not propose to delay bringing into force these important measures while research is carried out. The results would, in any event, be largely academic as we want to tackle all air weapon misuse irrespective of where the gun was purchased.
	Having said that, I understand the concerns about the impact of the clauses. As I made clear in Committee, we will work closely with the gun trade to ensure that the guidance on security and the requirements on keeping a register are kept proportionate. It will be open to existing sellers to apply to be registered and the fee of £150 works out at less than £1 a week, covering as it does a three-year period. Existing registered dealers will of course be able to continue to sell air weapons, with no charge to their business apart from a need to maintain a sales record and to conduct face-to-face transactions. We have already drafted Clause 32 in a way which minimises inconvenience to shooters in remote areas by allowing the final transfer of possession to be undertaken by a representative of the seller.
	As well as bearing down on the present indiscriminate and anonymous sale of air weapons to unsuitable or under-age people in the way proposed, it will also be important to continue to tackle misuse through education and safety awareness and through the rigorous enforcement of existing offences. We believe that these measures, taken together, can only be good for the long-term future of the legitimate airgun industry if they succeed in tackling the present unacceptable levels of misuse.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for raising the question of the "batches" approach. I accept that not all air weapons have numbers and we have agreed with the gun trade that batch numbers will be sufficient in the absence of serial numbers. I hope that that assurance clears up that final point.
	Again I am grateful to the noble Earl and I pay tribute to him for his diligence in this issue. No doubt if there are any loose ends that he wishes to see tidied up I am sure that we will be able to deal with that in the usual way through correspondence and so on. I shall be happy to speak to the noble Earl outside the Chamber if there are any other matters that are still unresolved. Having heard what I have said, I hope the noble Earl will now withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise to put on record that while the Bill has improved slightly as it has gone through the House it still retains some of the worst aspects of bureaucracy and may not deliver quite the benefits that the Government hope.
	The Bill has been marked throughout its passage by the willingness of the Minister and all members of his Bill team to work with all the bodies which have a direct interest in how the Bill may be operated. We hope that, as a result, some of the regulations may be better prescribed than otherwise they might. I received today the notice of draft guidance on alcohol disorder zones. Although it arrived very late it was not too late for me to see it before this Session and for it to be forwarded to the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the British Retail Consortium. It is a measure of the constructive activity of the Bill team that has enabled the Bill to have a less rocky ride than some.
	There is one small pebble in it that will return to us by way of exchange between the Houses in a week or two but, given the work that has been done behind the scenes, I do not anticipate at this stage any difficulty with that.